There is a line from John Adams of which conservatives, particularly those of a moralistic bent, are fond: “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people.” The surrounding prose is quoted much less frequently, and it is stern stuff dealing with one of Adams’s great fears — one that is particularly relevant to this moment in our history.

I wish someone had explained that to Mittens, before that fatuous tool embarrassed himself, the GOP, and America. For that matter, I wish someone had explained that to W. I understand when Democrats describe America as “a democracy,” but when Republicans do it, it demonstrates a seemingly invincible ignorance. Although Kevin addresses the topic like a recent convert, himself, at least he has arrived at the party, finally.

Quote:

John Adams hated democracy and he feared what was known in the language of the time as “passion.” Adams’s famous assessment: “I do not say that democracy has been more pernicious on the whole, and in the long run, than monarchy or aristocracy. Democracy has never been and never can be so durable as aristocracy or monarchy; but while it lasts, it is more bloody than either.” Democracy, he wrote, “never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide. It is in vain to say that democracy is less vain, less proud, less selfish, less ambitious, or less avaricious than aristocracy or monarchy. It is not true, in fact, and nowhere appears in history. Those passions are the same in all men, under all forms of simple government, and when unchecked, produce the same effects of fraud, violence, and cruelty.”
If you are wondering why that pedantic conservative friend of yours corrects you every time you describe our form of government as democracy — “It’s a republic!” he will insist — that is why.

I’m almost tempted to wonder whether NR readers are ill-informed enough to receive Kevin’s “revelation” as a new discovery, but as a former subscriber (not since my early twenties), I already know the answer. Buckley was prince of the pendants, as well as a supreme sophist.

It’s odd that Kevin would choose to demean the type of government under which one lives as an unimportant detail, by describing those who won’t allow the mistake to stand as “pedants,” even as he tediously spends half his article quoting a reluctant republican and nostalgic monarchist, just to defame the same public passion voters, both middle-class Republicans and blue-collar Democrats, once displayed for Reagan, a public figure for which the NR crowd claims to await the second coming.

It’s only too bad that these Rockefeller/Bush Republicans don’t remember how much they hated Reagan -- until after he was elected, shot, and brought to heel. They even ran a Rockefeller Republican to oppose Reagan in the 1980 general election, so horrified were they with the former Democrat/Goldwater Republican’s crossover appeal with blue-collar Democrats. Unfortunately for them, John Anderson didn’t inspire as much passion among the electorate, and Reagan won in a landslide.

Quote:

Your pedantic conservative friend probably is supporting Ted Cruz. The democratic passions that so terrified Adams have filled the sails of Donald Trump.

There’s a difference between being unpopular and being feared. The creepy Cruz has never been more popular than he is today, and The Donald has never been more feared.

The Establishment dislikes Ted Cruz because he was intended as a Huckabee, Santorum, Robertson, or Bauer, only meant as a token candidate, to throw a bone to the loyal dogs of the Republican base, and then to fade away, throwing his support behind the Establishment golden-boy of the year, another Bush, Romney, McCain, or Dole type. The Ted Cruz type is a general election loser (just like the throwaway candidates Romney, McCain, and Dole), never meant to make it past the Primary. It isn’t that Cruz isn’t a reliable lapdog of the Establishment; despite his “outsider” rhetoric, he is. It’s only that he is an embarrassment, a caricature, too Nixon-esque, not the public image the party wants to project.

Whether or not one agrees with some, most, or all of what Calgary Ted says, there is little doubt that he’ll do none, none but what he’s told by his masters. As far as being a Constitutional scholar goes, if the Canadian-born candidate for the US Presidency were a sincere adherent to the Constitution, rather than a shameless seeker of power and status, he wouldn’t even be running, because it takes the most determined imagination and distorted/contorted interpretation of law to conclude that he’s even somehow qualified to serve.

Donald Trump, on the other hand, whatever one may think of his personal philandering or political meandering, is sponsored by no one, and has, thus far, refused to bow and kiss the scepter of the men behind the curtain. The spokespuppets for the Establishment may claim to fear that The Donald will assume the mantle of a dictator, but their only real fear is that he will remain his own man, refusing to be dictated to, by them. In fact, the political donor class cares far less about what a candidate promises the voters than whether he might actually try to deliver on those promises. Donald Trump is a wildcard, because the Establishment fears he might just be sincere.

Only zealots, idiots, the naïve, and the senile take politicians at their word. It’s worth something, if only for contrast, that Trump’s campaign has the full devotion, involvement, and support of his entire family, including his ex-wife; whereas Cruz appears to make everyone’s skin crawl, not only many of those who’ve reluctantly endorsed him, but even his wife and daughter seem genuinely repelled by him. They don’t call him “Creepy Cruz” for nothing.

Quote:

Trumpkin democracy is the democracy that John Adams warned us about.

That’s cute. Rhymes with “pumpkin.” Why not “Trumpster”? Rhymes with “dumpster.” Or “Trumpling”? Rhymes with “dumpling.” Or “Trumper”? Rhymes with “jumper.” Just like “Cuckley” rhymes with “Buckley.”

You make it appear that there is “good democracy” and “bad democracy.” Adams would disagree. Adams favored no form of democracy, and simply viewed democracy as a system with a million citizens, a million tyrants, and a million oppressed. Given the choice, Adams preferred a dictatorship, recognizing the odds of finding one just man were better than finding a million just men. I am only speaking for a dead man, a dead man who is on the record, not of my own preferences.

Quote:

At some point within the past few decades (it is difficult to identify the exact genesis) the rhetorical affectation of politicians’ presuming to speak for “We the People” became fashionable.

Let me help you out here, Kevin:

“….[T]his nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.” - Honest Abe Lincoln 1863

Quote:

Three words from the preamble to the Constitution came to stand in for a particular point of view and a particular set of assumptions present in both of our major national political tendencies. Molly Ivins, the shallow progressive polemicist, liked to thunder that “We the People don’t have a lobbyist!” She liked to call lobbyists “lobsters,” too, a half-joke that she, at least, never tired of. Dr. Ben Carson likes to draft “We the People” into his service. Sean Hannity is very fond of the phrase, and so-called conservative talk radio currently relies heavily on the assumption that the phrase is intended to communicate: that there exists on one side of a line a group of people called “Americans” and on the other side a group called “the Establishment,” and that “We the People” are getting screwed by “Them.”

“We the People” begins the preamble to the Constitution, because it is a legal document, establishing a republican form of government, in which all powers are presumed to derive from the People. Congressmen were directly and proportionally elected by the People; Senators -- to guarantee equal representation of each state – were appointed by the States; and, the President was elected by Electors – equal to the total number Congressmen and Senators from each State. So, is there a line between the People and the government Established by them? That line might be considered the Constitution, the purpose of which was to provide a border of protection between the creature and the creator. When that boundary is violated, to the detriment of the creator, and to the perpetuation of the creature, the result may be derisively referred to as “The Establishment.”

Quote:

I write “so-called” conservative talk radio because the radio mob dropped conservatism with something like militaryv parade-ground precision the moment it looked like the ratings — and hence the juice — were on the other side.

It might help your case, if you defined “conservatism,” but I doubt it would, since your definition and mine would vary greatly, and mine is the correct one: American Conservatism is an adherence to the founding principles of this nation, as expressed in the founding documents (i.e., Declaration of Independence and Constitution), and expounded upon by the supporting materials provided by the Founders. To define American Conservatism in any other way is either the product of a deceitful or deceived mind. If by “conservatism” you mean “devotion to the existing power structure within the current RNC, its major financial contributors, and to their national and foreign policy driven financial interests,” just call yourself a “PAPist"(Party Above Principle-ist), a “party hack,” an “establishment tool,” or any number of more appropriate terms. Don’t misappropriate a pre-existing expression, with a pre-defined meaning, and adopt it to suit your purposes, just because it has a more favorable connotation than “termite,” which is what you really are.

Quote:

Donald Trump, talked up endlessly by the likes of Hannity and Laura Ingraham, apologized for by Rush Limbaugh, and indulged far too deeply for far too long by far too many others, rejects conservatism. He rejects free trade. He rejects property rights. He rejects the rule of law. He rejects limited government.

__________________

CHALLENGE: "Name a more anti-Semitic religion than Christianity."

-----------------------------------

QUESTION: "What's a WN Cuck?"

ANSWER: "Any WN who claims White women DESERVE to be gang-raped by non-Whites, as punishment for not yet being WN, is an anti-White enabler and Cuck."

Actually, Trump refers to himself, a bit dismissively, as a “conservative,” and I can’t disagree. At least, he’s definitely the most traditionally conservative candidate left in the race, and was probably in contention for the top 3 of the 18 who started the race, the other two possibly including Rand Paul and Mike Huckabee, with no one else even close. Cruz talks out of both sides of his mouth, and Kasich didn’t even pretend to care about the Constitution. Trump realizes that Neocons have stripped Conservatism of its meaning, so he doesn’t pay much attention to those who condemn him as not being whatever they call themselves.

Free trade? That was not an original tenet of Americanism. In fact, at the time of Adams, the federal government was funded, almost entirely, by tariffs, the concept of income-taxes having yet to be given international appeal by the 1848 rantings of Karl Marx. Besides, “Free Trade” is not what is practiced by our trading partners. Mexico is not a Free Trader. China is not a Free Trader. India is not a Free Trader. Vietnam is not a Free Trader. Japan is not a Free Trader. What we have is One-sided Trade. Our markets are exploited, while foreign markets are as tight as Fort Knox. Trump wants to stop companies from exploiting domestic markets at the expense of domestic jobs, while simultaneously opening more foreign markets to domestic companies; that’s just good business, and good for America.

Property rights? Are you referring to the fact that Trump supports eminent domain law? Eminent Domain is expressly supported in the Constitution. You or I may disagree with the Constitution, but you can hardly say a candidate for the Presidency “is NOT Conservative,” because his views are consistent with the US Constitution, as it existed in 1791.

The rule of law? Since you don’t specify, I must assume you’re referring to the fact that Trump advocates that American soldiers not be constrained by rules of engagement rejected by the forces they face?

I have no idea what you mean by your claim that Trump “rejects limited government,” since, again, you don’t specify. I can only imagine that you mean a President beholden to no power brokers is a “loose canon,” and might turn against those traditionally calling the shots, from behind the scenes.

Quote:

He advocates a presidency a thousand times more imperial than the one that sprung Athena-like from the brow of Barack Obama and his lawyers.

“[A] thousands times”? How did you reach that calculation? Kevin’s *Farraginous Formula?

Quote:

He meditates merrily upon the uses of political violence and riots, and dreams of shutting down newspapers critical of him.

Trump has advocated that his supporters defend themselves and their venues against those who would bully political opposition into silence -- political agitators, anarchists, and Marxists papering over their hammer-and-sickle tattoos with the Bill of Rights. And, he has speculated an unhappy ending for those who might employ similar tactics to mute the voice of his supporters, at the convention. I find no fault with either position, as politically incorrect as they may be.

I don’t pretend to know what occupies Donald Trump’s “dreams,” but I do know what he SAID. He said that he’d like to have members of the press held to the same standards of libel and slander as everyone else. That’s a far cry from shutting down newspapers for political opposition, which Lincoln actually did, on numerous occasions, on both sides of the Mason-Dixon Line. Lincoln, also, jailed Union politicians who opposed him, and even issued a warrant for the arrest of SCOTUS Chief Justice Taney, for overturning his denial of habeas corpus.

Quote:

He isn’t a conservative of any stripe, and it is an outright lie to present him as anything other than what he is.
What he is is the embodiment of the democratic passions that kept John Adams up at night. Trumpkin democracy is the democracy that John Adams warned us about.

Again with this? Why do I imagine you sobbing in the fetal position, in a dimly lit corner of your room, scribbling on damp paper?

Quote:

A proper republic under the rule of law is, as Adams wrote, “deaf as an adder to the clamors of the populace.” It is that which “no passion can disturb” and “void of desire and fear, lust and anger,” being, as it is, “ mens sine affectu.” The Trump movement is light on the mens, being almost entirely affectu.

A government with the power to oppress the governed, whatever that government calls itself, has the power to stir the passions of the people against it. A government which adhered strictly to the Constitution would be a government both deaf to the envy of the people and unyielding to the avarice of politicians. We don’t have such a government, and haven’t for quite some time, if ever; to pretend otherwise is beneath a child.

Quote:

Our law is a law of property, commerce, trade, and individual rights. The democratic passion — which informs the campaign of Bernie Sanders as much as it does that of Donald Trump — rejects those things. It would see unpopular points of view quashed, First Amendment be damned, a project already well under way among Democrats seeking to criminalize dissenting views on global warming.

The passion fueling Bernie’s boys is a byproduct of naiveté, stoked by Marxist demagoguery.

The passion fueling Trump’s campaign is born of voter cynicism, stoked by renewed optimism, the same optimism that fueled Reagan’s campaign and Goldwater’s.

The only force drawing anyone toward Hitlary, Kooky Kasich, or Creepy Cruz is complacency, and terror of straying too far from the status quo, whatever that may be, at any given moment. It’s the same force that bends political prisoners to the will of their captors: it’s institutionalization; it begins with public schooling….

Continually, you spew propaganda, and make no genuine effort to present a plausible case supporting your feeble “arguments.”

Quote:

The democratic passion demands the expropriation of Apple and Goldman Sachs, projects Trump considers with some glee. It demands a central-planning regime in place of the free flow of goods and capital, not because that’s good economics — it isn’t — but because such a regime would constitute an act of economic and political violence against Them.

Trump’s economic policies are designed as sadistic acts of violence against companies? Are you on Hillary’s paid campaign staff? Neocon apologists like you drive more voters towards Trump than Hillary and Bernie ever could. You make ample accusations, but you make zero sense.

Expropriation is exactly what China does to every company desiring to set up shop there, yet they keep coming. Why? They relocate to China because China does more than provide them with cheap labor. Trump knows this, but doesn’t want to get bogged down in the shifting sands of policy minutia. He doesn’t want to telegraph his punches, or get hamstrung by his critics, when he adapts his strategies to fit the economic realities of the moment. So, he sticks to stating goals, instead of publicly displaying strategies and tactics. However, if tariffs equate to “expropriation,” then Washington, Adams, Jefferson et al were Marxist Monsters, because, in the days before the confiscatory income tax (talk about your Marxist expropriation of wealth and property), that was the primary source of government funding.

There is nothing noble in a country leaving its markets unguarded against predatory foreign competitors. Such a country will find itself bankrupted and indebted to foreign banks, just as surely as a country failing to guard its borders will find itself hostage to invading hordes.

Quote:

These ideas are on the rise in many places, notably among adherents of Jean-Marie Le Pen’s Front Nationale in France and the Golden Dawn in beleaguered Greece, which latter group, despite reports of its demise, remains very much with us .

That’s exactly my point. Those movements are reactions to governments failing the people, failing to defend their markets and borders. Could you be more clueless?

Quote:

In our time as in Adams’s time, the worst of human nature is a threat amplified in the United States by the openness of our society and the liberality of our institutions. Adams again:

Quote:

While our country remains untainted with the principles and manners which are now producing desolation in so many parts of the world; while she continues sincere, and incapable of insidious and impious policy, we shall have the strongest reason to rejoice in the local destination assigned us by Providence. But should the people of America once become capable of that deep simulation towards one another, and towards foreign nations, which assumes the language of justice and moderation, while it is practising iniquity and extravagance, and displays in the most captivating manner the charming pictures of candour, frankness, and sincerity, while it is rioting in rapine and insolence, this country will be the most miserable habitation in the world. Because we have no government, armed with power, capable of contending with human passions, unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge and licentiousness would break the strongest cords of our Constitution, as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. Oaths in this country are as yet universally considered as sacred obligations. That which you have taken, and so solemnly repeated on that venerable ground, is an ample pledge of your sincerity and devotion to your country and its government.

All of which is why Adams signed the Alien and Sedition Acts, making citizenship more difficult, granting the President the power to imprison and/or deport dangerous non-citizens or just those from hostile regions, and even granting Adams the power to prosecute those who knowingly made false statements against his administration. And, let’s not forget that the Adams administration was funded by tariffs. Yet, you chose to use Adams to warn against Trump’s “ambitions”? You’re a fool.

As difficult as it is to imagine Donald Trump taking the presidential oath of office, it is much more difficult to imagine him taking it seriously, or indeed to imagine that there exists anything that is to him a “sacred obligation.”

Just get used to saying, “President Trump.”

Quote:

The federal character of the United States, and the fractured nature of the federal government — its three coequal branches and its further subdivided bicameral legislature — are designed to frustrate “We the People” when the people fall into dangerous and violent error of the sort with which they are now flirting.

Except that it’s exactly the opposite: the People, as you seem incapable of comprehending, are the authors of the document which created all of those institutions. The same document clearly defines and restricts the powers of the institutions created by it. It is not the business of those institutions to restrain the People; it is the duty of those institutions to abide by the restraints set forth in the Constitution, by the People. And, what if those institutions don’t respect their Constitutional restraints?

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it…”[Declaration of Independence 1776]

How?

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."[Bill of Rights, 2nd Amendment 1791]

Have you ever studied your nation’s founding, or do you just cut and paste, Kevin?

Quote:

Yes, there are people in power maneuvering to frustrate the will of “We the People” on a dozen different things, ranging from economic and national-defense policy to the specific matter of Donald Trump’s presidential campaign.

In other words, “there are people in power conspiring to obstruct the ‘consent of the governed.’” Yes, we know. Yet, your addled mind is able to consider obstructing the consent of the governed, in the election of a President, an “act of patriotism.” I beg to differ. We live in a time in which all 10 planks of Marxism have been adopted into American government, to one degree or another. That you support the status quo, and consider a reversion to a state closer to that authorized in our founding documents as “dangerous” classifies you as a traitor, not a patriot.

Quote:

That is prudence and patriotism, and the constitutional architecture of these United States is designed to prevent democratic passion from prevailing. Have your talk-radio temper tantrum. Have your riots. Our form of government, even in its current distorted state, was designed to handle and absorb your passions. You may dream of a dictator, but you will not have one.

Our Constitution was designed to protect the People against the passions, prejudices, fears, hatreds, and temper tantrums of those entrusted to administer their government. As usual, you are confused, Kevin.

The RNC has long lamented the dearth of political leaders capable of inspiring the passion and fealty of the voters, as Ronald Reagan did. Yet, you decry “passion,” when it doesn’t suit your purposes.

You speak of the blessings of democracy, as if it were synonymous with “liberty,” when the consensus is in your favor, and misinterpret Adams, when the winds of opinion threaten to capsize your dingy.

In desperation, you’re carpet bombing. You’re all over the map:

*“Passion + Democracy ÷ Dictatorship × Oligarchy = Patriotism”
???

You’re a mess, Kevin.

Look, I didn’t like Trump, either, at first, but the more idiots like you went hysterical over him, the closer I looked at him, and the closer I looked, the more your hysteria reminded me of Reagan and Goldwater. As disappointing as were Goldwater’s candidacy and Reagan’s Presidency, the thing they both had in common is that both of their candidacies drove the Establishment insane. If you really hate Trump, you should stop fighting him. Fighting him only makes him more popular, because nobody likes you.

Let me leave you with this prediction, Kevin: in the future, when the exclusively Republican version of Mt Rushmore is sculpted, the faces of four Republican Presidents will be on it – Lincoln, TR, Ronald Reagan, and Donald Trump…. And Mexico will pay for it!

I've only read a few of Williamson's articles, so to get a better picture of what drives Kevin's unthinking opposition to Trump, I decided to search YouTube, for candid interviews. Instead, this is what I found:

The bald head and bushy beard could either belong to a biker or a leather fetishist. Considering that he's delivering a speech, the pocket-T says "slob," especially combined with the giant belly and constant drooling. But, what does it mean that the guy is wearing two hoop earings (one in each ear), a pinky ring, bracelets, and a necklace? Is Williamson a Log-cabin Republican?

Donald Trump: The Populist Demagogue John Adams Anticipated
I wish someone had explained that to Mittens, before that fatuous tool embarrassed himself, the GOP, and America. For that matter, I wish someone had explained that to W. I understand when Democrats describe America as “a democracy,” but when Republicans do it, it demonstrates a seemingly invincible ignorance. Although Kevin addresses the topic like a recent convert, himself, at least he has arrived at the party, finally.
I’m almost tempted to wonder whether NR readers are ill-informed enough to receive Kevin’s “revelation” as a new discovery, but as a former subscriber (not since my early twenties), I already know the answer. Buckley was prince of the pendants, as well as a supreme sophist.

It’s odd that Kevin would choose to demean the type of government under which one lives as an unimportant detail, by describing those who won’t allow the mistake to stand as “pedants,” even as he tediously spends half his article quoting a reluctant republican and nostalgic monarchist, just to defame the same public passion voters, both middle-class Republicans and blue-collar Democrats, once displayed for Reagan, a public figure for which the NR crowd claims to await the second coming.

It’s only too bad that these Rockefeller/Bush Republicans don’t remember how much they hated Reagan -- until after he was elected, shot, and brought to heel. They even ran a Rockefeller Republican to oppose Reagan in the 1980 general election, so horrified were they with the former Democrat/Goldwater Republican’s crossover appeal with blue-collar Democrats. Unfortunately for them, John Anderson didn’t inspire as much passion among the electorate, and Reagan won in a landslide.
There’s a difference between being unpopular and being feared. The creepy Cruz has never been more popular than he is today, and The Donald has never been more feared.

The Establishment dislikes Ted Cruz because he was intended as a Huckabee, Santorum, Robertson, or Bauer, only meant as a token candidate, to throw a bone to the loyal dogs of the Republican base, and then to fade away, throwing his support behind the Establishment golden-boy of the year, another Bush, Romney, McCain, or Dole type. The Ted Cruz type is a general election loser (just like the throwaway candidates Romney, McCain, and Dole), never meant to make it past the Primary. It isn’t that Cruz isn’t a reliable lapdog of the Establishment; despite his “outsider” rhetoric, he is. It’s only that he is an embarrassment, a caricature, too Nixon-esque, not the public image the party wants to project.

Whether or not one agrees with some, most, or all of what Calgary Ted says, there is little doubt that he’ll do none, none but what he’s told by his masters. As far as being a Constitutional scholar goes, if the Canadian-born candidate for the US Presidency were a sincere adherent to the Constitution, rather than a shameless seeker of power and status, he wouldn’t even be running, because it takes the most determined imagination and distorted/contorted interpretation of law to conclude that he’s even somehow qualified to serve.

Donald Trump, on the other hand, whatever one may think of his personal philandering or political meandering, is sponsored by no one, and has, thus far, refused to bow and kiss the scepter of the men behind the curtain. The spokespuppets for the Establishment may claim to fear that The Donald will assume the mantle of a dictator, but their only real fear is that he will remain his own man, refusing to be dictated to, by them. In fact, the political donor class cares far less about what a candidate promises the voters than whether he might actually try to deliver on those promises. Donald Trump is a wildcard, because the Establishment fears he might just be sincere.

Only zealots, idiots, the naïve, and the senile take politicians at their word. It’s worth something, if only for contrast, that Trump’s campaign has the full devotion, involvement, and support of his entire family, including his ex-wife; whereas Cruz appears to make everyone’s skin crawl, not only many of those who’ve reluctantly endorsed him, but even his wife and daughter seem genuinely repelled by him. They don’t call him “Creepy Cruz” for nothing.
That’s cute. Rhymes with “pumpkin.” Why not “Trumpster”? Rhymes with “dumpster.” Or “Trumpling”? Rhymes with “dumpling.” Or “Trumper”? Rhymes with “jumper.” Just like “Cuckley” rhymes with “Buckley.”

You make it appear that there is “good democracy” and “bad democracy.” Adams would disagree. Adams favored no form of democracy, and simply viewed democracy as a system with a million citizens, a million tyrants, and a million oppressed. Given the choice, Adams preferred a dictatorship, recognizing the odds of finding one just man were better than finding a million just men. I am only speaking for a dead man, a dead man who is on the record, not of my own preferences.
Let me help you out here, Kevin:

“….[T]his nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.” - Honest Abe Lincoln 1863
“We the People” begins the preamble to the Constitution, because it is a legal document, establishing a republican form of government, in which all powers are presumed to derive from the People. Congressmen were directly and proportionally elected by the People; Senators -- to guarantee equal representation of each state – were appointed by the States; and, the President was elected by Electors – equal to the total number Congressmen and Senators from each State. So, is there a line between the People and the government Established by them? That line might be considered the Constitution, the purpose of which was to provide a border of protection between the creature and the creator. When that boundary is violated, to the detriment of the creator, and to the perpetuation of the creature, the result may be derisively referred to as “The Establishment.”
It might help your case, if you defined “conservatism,” but I doubt it would, since your definition and mine would vary greatly, and mine is the correct one: American Conservatism is an adherence to the founding principles of this nation, as expressed in the founding documents (i.e., Declaration of Independence and Constitution), and expounded upon by the supporting materials provided by the Founders. To define American Conservatism in any other way is either the product of a deceitful or deceived mind. If by “conservatism” you mean “devotion to the existing power structure within the current RNC, its major financial contributors, and to their national and foreign policy driven financial interests,” just call yourself a “PAPist"(Party Above Principle-ist), a “party hack,” an “establishment tool,” or any number of more appropriate terms. Don’t misappropriate a pre-existing expression, with a pre-defined meaning, and adopt it to suit your purposes, just because it has a more favorable connotation than “termite,” which is what you really are.

Williamson's closing line:

"Have your talk-radio temper tantrum. Have your riots. Our form of government, even in its current distorted state, was designed to handle and absorb your passions. You may dream of a dictator, but you will not have one."

doesn't sound like dispair.

__________________

I AM PLE

The old coyote senses danger and sinks into the prairie grass. He can not be seen... but he watches.... and waits.

"Have your talk-radio temper tantrum. Have your riots. Our form of government, even in its current distorted state, was designed to handle and absorb your passions. You may dream of a dictator, but you will not have one."

doesn't sound like dispair.

Kevin's argument last week was that an entire class of Republican voters needed to cease to exist, in order for the Establishment to get its way. A week later, Kevin is openly confessing to the use of extra-legal means to obstruct the consent of the governed. If that isn't despair and resignation, I don't know what is. I just see Kevin's comments as sticking out his tongue to the new boss.

The article seems incoherent and self-contradictory. Ooooh, don't the lefties just get SQUEALY when their sheeple are giving the sheepdog the middle finger?

As a Brit, can I ask who is "Mittens" (afaik, that's the name of my cat)?

I believe they're talking about Mitt Romney who was the cuck the Republican establishment nominated to run against Obama in the last election. He basically gave the Presidency to Obama, due to being afraid to go after Obama for fear of being labeled a racist.